UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7650

TRAVIS J. MCFADDEN,
Petitioner Appellant,
v.
REUBEN YOUNG,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-hc-02205-F)

Submitted:

February 27, 2014

Decided:

March 4, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Travis J. McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Travis

J.

McFadden

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

courts order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2012)

petition

and

courts

order

orders

are

issues

denying
denying

not

his

appealable

certificate

2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

his

absent

motion
motion
unless
of

appoint

for
a

counsel

and

reconsideration.

circuit

justice

appealability.

or

28

the
The

judge
U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.

to

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that McFadden has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
2

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED